366 STUDIES IN AMERICAN TETTIGONIIDAE (oRTHOPTERA) 



ing that the genus Conocephalus of authors was composed of a 

 number of valid sections, erected subgeneric names for the same, 

 Neoconocephalus being the one proposed for the present group. 

 That author, however, at that time retained the name Conoceph- 

 alus as a broad generic designation covering these subgenera. The 

 same author, however, in 1912, recognizing the fact that Cono- 

 cephalus by tautonymy should be transferred to the genus called 

 Anisoptera by Latreille and Xiphidion by Serville, and convinced 

 of the fact that his subgenera previously erected were of generic 

 validity, elevated the names Neoconocephalus, Euconocephalus 

 and Homer ocoryphus to generic rank.^ It is solely with his genus 

 Neoconocephalus that we are dealing at present. Of the other 

 two related genera, but one, Homorocoryphus, is represented by a 

 single species, H. malivolans (Scudder), in the regions at present 

 under consideration. Scudder's Conocephalus acutulus, described 

 in 1878, belongs in the genus Caulopsis, as placed with a query 

 by Karny in 1912; we believe that the specimen was recorded from 

 California in error as that genus is confined to tropical America. 



Distribution of Genus. — In America north of Mexico the genus 

 is generally distributed east of the Rocky Mountains as far north 

 as the southern limits of the Canadian Zone, west of these moun- 

 tains it is found only short distances from the Mexican border 

 where it is by no means abundant. 



The brevity of some of the earlier descriptions of the species, 

 the use of these names by different authors to designate different 

 species and some recent misconceptions, have caused the lit- 

 erature on the North American species of the present genus to 

 become in places decidedly involved. The eleven species, one of 

 which divides into two geographic races, which are found in the 

 region under consideration, are well defined and it is the purpose 

 of the present paper to state briefly their differential characters 

 and indicate the relative importance of these. The literature 

 on the species under consideration has been carefully examined, 

 but the only corrections made in the present paper are those of 

 which we have the material or other conclusive evidence before us. 



^ Gen. Ins., Subf. Copiphorinae, pp. 29, 33 and 36. 



